0 votes

New John Dennis Ad: "Get Out, Pelosi!" (VIDEO)

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Kinda creepy-- well, Halloween is just around the corner. ;)

I like the last line; it's very Randian.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Like every other John Dennis ad, this ad kicks ass!

What a shame that this thread has devolved into an argument over abortion when it's not even mentioned in the ad. Alls I can say is, I hope RP's team picks up the core people on JD's team when it's time for his presidential campaign.

Distrust in government

I think that is the great thing about this ad and reminding progressives and conservatives why they distrust government. This could be an effective ad and probably would be picked up by msm due to its chilling nature. We should be afraid of an overbearing government that dictates to us how we should live and micromanages our lives. We should fear people like Nancy Pelosi who personifies that belief.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

"Progressives" or lets call

"Progressives" or lets call them what they really are.. Leftist commies, do trust government.. government is their "god"

I sure hope so...

They are certainly doing enough to make a sane, rational person distrust them completely.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

mmmm.. yeah so

jstellar and relative,

What do y'all think of making this a national ad?

why not

if that's how he wishes to use the money i donated, go for it. i don't know if he's running as effectively as someone best possibly could, but there doesn't seem to be a lack of smart ideas coming out of his campaign thus far.

i'll donate again on my next profit intake.

posts from another fine example of the idiots from LP

i think they should be officially ostracized from any definition, association, or ideologies related to the term "libertarian", that LP should now stand for something all on its own. something out of this world and suitable for their virtual stagnant performance in the year where EVERYONE IS PISSED AT INCUMBENTS, a year they SOMEHOW managed to LOSE independents even in such environment come election time in some places (will you please not ask, GOOGLE IT), demonstrating what utter losers they are, among everything else, in addition to non-electability.

from THREE responses that did not soothe his dwindled mind, "relative" was able to collectively summarize the stance of every individual on dp, and he attacks ron paul's constitutional stance on abortion which is to let every state make its own decision, and by doing so implies the alternative which is a wish for a federal one size fit all legalization on abortion in all stages of pregnancy, perhaps even minutes after birth.

and relative, don't even make a fucking stupid argument saying "well, minutes before or after birth shouldn't be legal" because the minute you do that, you are micro-managing the definition of the legality of abortion, suppose if abortion were legal, and any idiot knows that federal government can NEVER micro manage things. there are bound to be many issues arising from this, some people wanting it legal only the first few months before certain cerebral functions of the infants develop, while some others consider it legal all the way even until minutes after birth.

if you can't even comprehend this, you're not a libertarian. you're not a teapartier either. you are NOTHING. go form an abortion party. you might even do better than LP.

why do you continue babbling

why do you continue babbling about the LP?
I never said anything about the LP and I was never a member or anything else.

to the stance on this issue of "the pauls":
ron paul's view is constitutional in the sense that he is a politician on the federal level and wants to leave it up to the states - I'm ok with that (although I'm not ok with his personal view, but it doesn't matter in this case)

rand paul's stance on this issue is totally different. he supports a federal ban on abortion without exceptions, which he said repeatedly.

I guess I have to expect this

I guess I have to expect this reaction from a website that now appears to be dedicated to sarah-palin-endorsed candidates.

you go back to your "tea party movement" (republican party in disguise), and have fun with your McCain-like president.

at least you responded, that's a start

a change from the drop and run policy i see from your post tracking.

i may bestow you with some enlightenment on the issue if i am convinced you don't chicken out from conversations as usual. not that i feel exceptionally informed compared to other leaders in this movement, but because you are so exactly the opposite by comparison.

i doubt you even spent hours listening to debates to figure out the various aspect of this issue and even where ron paul stands on this. his stance is completely constitutional.

nah, stick with the narrowly-defined, only sometimes-constitutional LP platform. the party of losers and bitter letters from your vice presidents to anyone not mired in the loser camp. L o L

I comment here from time to

I comment here from time to time, that means I dont always reply.

so what exactly did you want to discuss? I don't see a single argument in your post.
just a lot of babbling.

I am not and never was associated with the LP.
I'm pretty sure I know where ron and rand stand on this.

Seriously, National Ad anyone?

anyone?

out of my body, eh? that

out of my body, eh?
that would be a new thing for tea partiers and even dr. paul.

just because YOU define a clump of cells as "human life" does not give you the right to regulate another person's body.

It's NOT referring to abortion.

From Dennis' Facebook response to a similar comment:

"Moderator Says: "Out of my body" is a reference to prohibition and health care."

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/johndennis2010?v=wall

However, the campaign probably made it deliberately ambiguous so as to resonate with as many voters as possible.

Please stop discussing abortion-- this thread is for the ad.

..actually, the first thing I

..actually, the first thing I thought of was any raw or organic foods we want to eat. I also thought of MaryJane. I waffle on the abortion issue. In some ways there is the right to life, and in others there is freedom and pursuit of happiness. Either way, like marriage, I just can not see it as a federal issue. I do not, however, think the ad was discussing abortion.

I get that it doesnt refer to

I get that it doesnt refer to abortion.
that is the inconsistency I was referring to.

There are some "clumps of cells"

which I don't define as human life.

Some of them are even occasional posters here on Daily Paul.

Not I But Nature.

(You, metaphorically)
You made a contract when you had sex to bring this HUMAN to life. If you extort that HUMAN out of your body when you say this HUMAN is trespassing and extort him into a lethal environment you have just killed a human that you brought life to by your contractual sex, clearly immoral.

See the airplane analogy for further demonstration here.
http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-16.pdf

Once you understand that it is immoral to abandon your child to a lethal environment you only have to come to the conclusion that life begins at conception.

Almost everyone agrees that a newborn child is a human person. One can work backwards in time through the birth process, fetal development, embryo growth, pre-embryo stage, and finally end up at the zygote: the start of a human organism. Prior to that point, there was no human life. There was just an ovum and one sperm, neither of which is considered a form of life by most scientists. Conception is the first point where a single, living human organism exists and needs only to grow.

Even if you can not except or confirm that life begins at conception would not one err on the side of life? What if he/she is an individual at 5 months, 3 months, and down the line, all the way to conception?

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

by the way, EVERY scientist

by the way, EVERY scientist would consider a sperm "life", for example if it would be found on mars.

Please...

Show me a scientist who finds sperm living on Mars and I will show you one wack "scientist", LOL

Ya, but they wouldn't call it

Ya, but they wouldn't call it human life.

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

you didnt really reply, you

you didnt really reply, you repeated your assumption that a clump of cells is "a child" or "human life".

we can discuss when human life starts all day, but that doesnt lead us anywhere. the fact is that there is no general definition,
but you want to impose your (probably religiously motivated) definition on everybody by criminal law, and call that libertarian.

your talk about contracts, excuse me, is just BS.
a contract is between two or more parties. between who? the mother and the non-existing "child"? not a contract.
between the mother and the father? well then I guess they can both agree to cancel it, can`t they?

OK, I disagree but I'll put

OK, I disagree but I'll put that aside for now, here is why I am right. http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm

I would love to hear your argument on why life does not begin at conception.

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

"[Reprinted from the Catholic

"[Reprinted from the Catholic Answer 9: 40-45,1996] "

enough said.

whether a woman you dont even know should be jailed for life for murder does not depend on your religious views.

conception doesnt change anything. there was life before and theres life after. it was as "human" before as it was after. (if you can even find a definition). it was as capable of surviving in the "outside world" as it was before.

most moral philosophers define life (that must be protected, we don`t protect plants) in terms of its capability to suffer. that would be one approach to discuss this.

but I suspect that doesnt lead us anywhere either, because most people who are against abortion get their opinion from religious views, and just (mis-)use scientific arguments to fit their religion.

So you reject any

So you reject any developments in the scientific method, the university system, philosophy, etc, because of their association with Catholics?

Are you saying that for you, it does not matter if there is life, only if that life has the ability to suffer? Can a human outside of the womb who can not suffer be killed? (Say a man in a coma who will, just as a baby in a womb will, most likely come out and be conscious, yet is not currently able to suffer)

I'm not really following the paragraph that begins with "conception".

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

I don't reject any argument

I don't reject any argument because of association with catholics.
it just tends to be the case that scientific arguments brought forward by someone whose primary motivation is religion are usually bogus.

just like in this case.

Ya, you sure proved your

Ya, you sure proved your point...

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

what point? I answered your

what point?
I answered your question.

go back to your 3% LP

.

reply: see above

reply: see above